VOTE411 Voter Guide

I would evaluate our square footage requirements for additional buildings on private land. Today, an accessory structure may be only 25 percent of the habitable floor area of the primary residence or 400 square feet, whichever is greater. I want that changed. Serving on the Zoning Board of Adjustment, I heard the case of a landowner with a multi-acre property who sought a variance to build a shop for his equipment, tractors, and tools. Existing rules forced us to deny him. As a believer in property rights, I found that outcome disheartening. Texans who have worked hard to own land should be able to use it responsibly. Every Texan deserves enough covered space to store a tractor and work on it out of the Texas sun.

As a member of the Housing Action Committee and Impact Fee Advisory Committee, I have worked to open practical paths to affordable housing. That takes time, planning, and investment. Staff brought nearly 700 sites that can be rezoned for more diverse housing, infill in smart locations, plus townhomes and smaller homes. I was the strongest voice for rezoning a large tract so a builder can add hundreds of homes. College Station’s supply lags demand; this helps close the gap. More homes mean better prices for first time buyers. A Bush Institute at SMU study found homeownership is the strongest driver of generational wealth. Every American should be able to chase that dream. I did not wait to be elected. I have already been finding solutions.

My top two priorities would be finding creative, lasting ways to close the pay gap for first responders and responsibly expanding 380 agreements to bring primary jobs to College Station. Our police and fire departments are among the best in Texas, with accolades and accreditations we are proud of. Today they remain 12 to 15 percent behind on base pay. I would work to close that gap while keeping a culture where these brave men and women are happy and proud to serve College Station. The state gives cities 380 agreements to attract primary employers. I support them because they protect taxpayer dollars with audits and clawback clauses. Used well, they can bring good jobs as we grow efficiently and protect what makes College Station special.

Let accessory dwelling units — a garage apartment, a guest house — be approved administratively on single-family lots that meet objective standards, instead of requiring a separate hearing for each one.

Why: it adds homes on land the city has already paid to serve with streets and utilities, so it costs taxpayers nothing in new capital. It gives a young family, an aging parent, or a teacher a way into a neighborhood they otherwise couldn't afford. And it leaves the decision with the property owner instead of the outcome of a hearing.

The standards still apply — setbacks, height, parking, design. An owner adding a garage apartment is not an investor carving a house into rooms, and our code shouldn't treat them alike.

Affordability is two problems: getting into a home, and staying in one.

Getting in is supply. Let more housing types be built by right on land the city already serves, and stop stacking fees onto a new house that the buyer then finances for thirty years at mortgage rates.

Staying in is taxes — the lever council actually controls. Our homestead exemption and our tax rate decide whether a retiree on a fixed income keeps the house she already owns, and renters feel it too, because property taxes travel through rent. I'd start at the no-new-revenue rate and make the city justify every dollar above it.

A city that only builds, and never looks after the people already here, hasn't solved affordability.

Growth and independence — and they meet in the same place.

We are adding people faster than we are adding anything of our own. Every commercial center we have orbits campus, so our economy rises and falls with one employer.

A downtown of our own answers both. The city zones it and connects it — water, sewer, streets — against standards an applicant can read up front. Private investment builds it, not public debt. That is where employers recruit top talent, residents gather, housing comes in more than one form, and transit finally has a hub worth connecting.

The rest of growth follows the same rule: it should pay for the capacity it needs.

The way we address impact fees. I believe we can have a sliding scale for impact fees where we don’t apply the same amount for each development which I believe will help developers build more affordable housing.

We have to make sure we aren’t maximizing all developments and allowing developers to continue to put profit over people. We also can’t have NIMBYism kill the opportunity of having affordable housing come near you.

Displacement of working class and generational residents due to unaffordable housing. And the youth, I would like to see our focus shift a little more on our homegrown youth and making sure they know this is a city for them and their future.